tv Parker Spitzer CNN October 27, 2010 8:00pm-9:00pm EDT
spent. it's just unbelievable. >> you don't want my kids to eat, dana. >> all right, let's chloe on -- i don't know if this is a funny note or not. the first sitting president to go on jon stewart, "the daily show." the president says, quote, we've done an awful lot -- this is during the taping. he said, jon, i love your show. but i have a mild disagreement about some of the criticism. you see them on the screen there. the presidential set there. >> can't wait to see it but listen he's got to get that young demographic. he knows who watches that show. so that's why he went there, right? >> he just put you in the young demographic. >> thank you, i appreciate it. >> that's all the time we have tonight, guys. tonight, guys. we'll see you tomorrow. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com good evening, i'm kathleen parker. >> i'm eliot spitzer. welcome. tonight in our opening arguments, kathleen, forget about it. that's what the republicans are saying to the president.
no compromise. mitch mcconnell saying making him a one-term president is mission one. and mike pence, who was the third ranking republican in the house, is saying no compromise on any issue. back to being the party of no. >> well, the republicans have been very good at being the party of no. and actually, you know, it was a strategy and it's worked very well because guess who's coming to washington. >> it's worked for their electoral success but not for governing. the public is saying we want compromise. that's why even before the election, to hear the republicans saying we reject the very notion of it is kind of surprising to me. >> i almost called you sweetie. >> oh, my goodness. >> this is what i always say with my husband when i'm about to disagree with him. but sweetie. no, no, no. but listen, the reason we're in this situation is because president obama and the democrats, they put us here. what are you supposed to agree to? the president had control of both houses. he was -- he's increased the debt by trillions. he took over gm. he took over health care. he created this mess.
>> he came in when the patient was on the floor bleeding to death and the patient is now ready to walk -- >> and then he put a bullet through his head. >> the patient is ready to walk out of the hospital. we were losing 700,000 jobs a month and now we've got an economy that's coming back. having been in that position, having been a governor, having been in government for many years, you can't do it if the other side just slams the door in your face. there have got to be two parties willing to talk to each other. when mitch mcconnell says we're gunning for you and spence says we're going to do everything we cannot to compromise, what are you supposed to do? >> the republicans have their plan in place. there's no question. they do want to see president obama out of the white house in 2012. i can't disagree with you there. what happens next is they have to come together in some way. i have a feeling they're going to put the onus on president obama. >> i would say, be careful of hubris, be careful of overplaying their hand. it is very treacherous business they're about to get into. >> i'm so glad you mentioned
hubris because they had a hubris watch -- >> hubris or hubris. >> i say hubris. what do you say, hubris? >> i don't know the word. in a moment, we'll talk with mike pence about the looming showdown. more importantly, is he the first person who will officially declare that he's running for president in 2012? we think we know the answer. first, we have an outstanding show. >> you really know what manup means? we'll reveal true meaning behind the buzziest words from the election cycle. >> my favorite part of the show, name your cultts. we'll remand answers. we'll demand answers. but, now, time for a headline. >> he is one of the most powerful republicans in washington and he says no compromise. he promises to stand in the way of an aggressive liberal agenda. that's how he sees it anyway. joining us from wadeville, indiana, congressman mike pence. welcome. >> thank you. >> congressman, you and i may not be on the same side of the aisle on this one but enjoying
keeping up your energy and making the most of the last couple days. more importantly, i guess, congratulations. you're running for president, we hear. and that's going to be one big endeavor for you. so enjoy it and we wish you nothing but luck. >> well, thanks, eliot. i've read that too. i tell you, my focus is entirely on november 2nd. i really do believe this is one of those -- this is one of those generational moments. in electoral politicians. i'll agree with president obama who said that this election is a choice. i don't think it's a choice between the failed economic policies of the president and the failed economic policies of the recent past. i think the american people are going to decide. i hope in definitive terms whether we're going to continue this pathway of more government and more spending and more bail yu bailouts and more takeovers or whether we'll turn back to fiscal responsibility and pro-growth policies and i'm
honored to be some small part of that debate. and we'll let the future take care of itself. >> congressman, i want to jump in on something you said. i think we would all agree, the fulcrum of this election is jobs, jobs, job, how are we going to get them back. when president obama came into office we were losing jobs at a horrendous rate. i'm throw up a graphic. you've seen these numbers before. it's that curve that shows how many jobs we were losing until president obama came into office. 700,000 a month. he passed a stimulus. help got the government geared up. we are now creating jobs. president bush, we went over the cliff. we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs. president obama, a stimulus package that by all economic counts hasn't worked. what is your answer to the charge you're playing candidates? you're now the candidate of no. you've said that yourself. what was wrong with what president obama did in the stimulus which a third of which was a tax cult as t as requeste
the republican party? >> well, i would say, eliot, i don't know where the consensus is that it worked. the administration said we had to borrow $1 trillion in the stimulus bill or unemployment would reach 8%. it's now more than 9.5% across the country. it clearly has not worked. and that's because this administration didn't learn the lessons of the last administration and that is you can't borrow and spend with deficits and debt your way back to a growing economy -- >> congressman, look -- >> eliot, you know, i was a pretty harsh critic of the last administration. i supported the tax relief. i fought against the big government programs of the bush administration. i opposed the leadership of my own party. because the american people know that the way to get the economy moving again is you combine pro-growth tax policy with real fiscal discipline in washington, d.c. and that's the real pathway to prosperity in the future. >> we'll have that conversation. i'm going to give you every
opportunity to discuss it because that's a critical issue. when you say it hasn't worked, when president obama came into office, we were losing jobs at a clip of 700,000 a month. >> right. >> we now have positive job growth. and so how can you say that hasn't worked when the policies of president bush, where the curve is going straight down, we turned that around 180 degrees? how can you possibly say that hasn't worked? >> well, again, i think the administration said we needed to spend $1 trillion in the stimulus bill or unemployment would go to 8%. it's 9.5%. it's now -- i think last month, eli eliot. we're now at 9.5% or higher for the longest time in success since the great depression. look, we can't borrow and spend and bail our way back to a growing economy. the economy is going to continue to wrestle its way forward and find marginal gains in the public sector, the private sector. but i think most americans know the way you get the economy moving again is a combination of
across the board tax relief and you put into practice real fiscal discipline. which this administration clearly hasn't done. and frankly, the last administration didn't do that well with either. >> look, the trend line we had with president bush would have taken us to 13% or 14% unemployment. let's naught aside for a moment. let's put that aside for a moment. you want to extend the tax cuts in perpetuity. which everybody agrees will result in a deficit over the next decade. how are you going to balance that budget? specifically, where do you cut to close the chasm of this deficit? >> well, look, i know that -- i know the way that sophisticated in washington do the numbers, is they tend to talk about how you pay for tax cuts as though the government kind of owed all the money. but just going with that kind of accounting, that's fine. first, i think, to get the economy moving again, you ought to make sure that no american
sees a tax increase in january of 2011, not one. you're never going to balance the budget in a combination of our three lifetimes if we don't get the economy growing again at 3% or 4%. first thing you want to do is make sure no one sees the tax increase. next thing, you ought to look for additional tax relief that will encourage capital formation and investment. and then in terms of your question about budget cuts, i think everything's on the table. i mean, you've been a governor. you've got to look at the whole budget. i think we've got to look at everything from domestic spending to entitlement reform to even defense spending. this country's going broke. we've got to take decisive, across the board action to put our fiscal house in action. >> i disagree with your promise that if you cut the tax rate further you're going to generate any growth. let's focus on the tax cuts. you said everything will be on the table. i agree with you, it's got to be on the table. will you increase the retirement
age to 70 as has been proposed by paul ryan and many others? >> well, look, my personal view of what we view with social security and medicare is -- is we basically say to everybody 40 years old and older that we'll keep the promise that we've made to you, medicare and social security, through the course of your life and career. so people that are within a generation of retiring, we just tell them, we'll keep you in the deal. for americans under the age of 40, absolutely, we've got to reform these systems. make them a better deal for taxpayers. when you combine them with private savings alternatives and private health insurance alternatives, i think we're going to give americans under the age of 40 a better deal to replace the old new deal program. >> i admire you for being willing to say for those below 40 you would change the equation on social security, basically saying you're going to change the retirement age. if you push it back that far, it's not going to do what we need to do. are you willing to consider any cuts in defense? >> well, look, i didn't -- the
retirement age thing, i think all the alternatives to reforming social security and medicare for people under the age of 40 ought to be considered. i didn't want to put my -- hang my hat on one peg. but you bet, elliott. we know there are inefficiencies in defense spending in this country. we have real challenges. there are rising threats around the globe far beyond the reach of the war on terror we need to be preparing for, for the future. i think we can do that if we look for greater efficiencies and if we set into motion processes that will encourage efficiency and a better use of taxpayer's dollars in providing for the common defense which of course is the first article of the federal government. that's the first and most important thing the federal government is going to do other than protecting the rights of every person in the country. >> i want to come back to the tax rate one more time. you talk about cutting the tax rate which of course everybody would love to do. you know historically -- we can put a graphic up showing this. the top rate used to be up at
94% in the early part of the '40s, the '50s. it's been coming down consistently until it's now at 35%, really one of the lowest points. and growth in our economy has not really been affected by this over time. if you look at that. so when you say "cut the rate more," you realize that has not generated the growth that you're talking about. >> well, look, i think -- i actually think when president kennedy cut the top marginal tax rate, when ronald reagan cult the top marginal tax rate, when president bush cut the race after the towers fell in you beloved new york, we saw those top income earners ultimately sending more money under a lower marginal rate because it generated economic activity. i think that's a pretty unbroken historical fact. but, you know, i will stipulate that this notion that you can go back to the tax cut and spend policies of the recent
republican past is a nonstarter. it was like republicans replaced the tax and spend liberal democrat congress and they become a liberal tax cut and spend majority. the way it's going to work is if we have serious, across the board tax relief for working families, small businesses and family farms. and we practice fiscal discipline. but the other thing is, when you talk about that marginal income tax rate, i got to tell you, whether it's whirlpool here in evansville, indiana, or all across southwestern indiana, we've been losing manufacturing overseas for sometime. as i talk to business leaders, we have some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. individuals who -- business owners who file as individuals pay some of the highest business taxes in the industrialized world. we've got to stop looking at just what america's done in the past. but what are those countries doing that we're losing jobs to and create the tax structure to
encourage jobs here? >> congressman, i think the american people would like to see congress work together. is there anyone across the aisle you feel you can work with to cut the deficit next year? >> you know, i really believe -- i believe there is. and more than one, kathleen. look, i think there are many honorable men and women in congress. who are ready to roll their sleeves up. >> can you name people? >> -- both sides of the aisle to put our fiscal house in order. look, i don't want to intrude myself in campaigns. look, i believe the american people are possibly -- i'm not making prognostication predictions here. i think it's possible the american people will send a deafening message to washington, d.c. that they want our fiscal house in order. whether it's new conservatives being elected or democrats who managed to return to capitol hill, i fully expect, and i hope and i literally pray, that we'll be able to come together and do
the hard work to put our nation on a pathway toward fiscal solvency and a balanced federal budget. >> well, thank you very much. we hope those prayers get answered. congressman pence, thank you for being with us. >> and when you -- and so i have, and when you invest is when consumers are showing up and you can make what they want. >> i won't even know what an emploilee will cost come january 1st. - hello! - ha! why don't you try a home cooked meal... with yummy hamburger helper? oh! tada! fantastically tasty, huh? ummm, it's good. what would you guys like? hamburger helper. what?! one pound... one pan... one tasty meal! [ male announcer ] every day thousands of people are switching from tylenol to advil. to learn more and get your special offer, go to takeadvil.com.
reason.com. thank you both for being here. katrina, as we've all seen, compromise has seemed impossible for political reasons the last couple of years. is it going to be possible november 3rd? do we have a shot at compromise? >> polls show tea partiers also support social security benefits, strengthening them, not cutting them. we've seen an alliance between rand paul and barney frank, libertarian and progressive liberal. on cutting $1 trillion out of the defense budget over ten years. those are my ideals for moving forward. am i living on another planet? i hope not. >> barney frank, that would be a great -- >> that means -- does that make sense to you? >> yeah, some. one of the things you mention is big banks, big corporations. also big government. that's what energizing the tea party. i think we can make real cuts. the problem isn't gridlock come november 3rdp the problem is what's been passed in the last two years. reason why the democrats are in trouble in the midterms and the
reason why obama is so tremendously impossible is not in spite of what he did but all of the stuff that he passed through, starting with the stimulus, going through obama care, various -- pushing more auto bailouts which he voted for under bush and t.a.r.p. these run popular programs. these are unpopular programs. and then trickling down in afghanistan, please. >> here's where i disagree with you -- i don't think president obama went the bridge far enough. >> the stimulus failed -- >> the stimulus could have been bigger -- >> let her finish. >> libertarian. >> that's right. >> the stimulus could have been bigger. the public option, driven out by lobby i.s and others, would have been more popular. i think there were millions of people who wanted to see banks reformed, not rescued. so i think you do see some anger. it's not the conventional wisdom of overreach. it's that not enough was done. >> you're saying if obama doubled the stimulus, even though he said he got what he
wanted, and it's a complete failure -- >> -- saved or created 3.5 million jobs. >> let's put some numbers into this equation. it's undeniable that until the stimulus was passed we were losing jobs at the rate of about 650,000 -- >> we were also in a recession -- >> -- per month -- >> which was going -- >> -- has brought us back to positive sector job growth. let me just finish. are you suggesting if the government had done nothing that we would have gotten jobs back faster? simple question. >> okay what i am suggesting is what hurts as much as economic contraction and turmoil is uncertainty. all that has been injected into the economic and political arena in the past two years and i would argue this includes at least the last two years of the bush administration, has been massive uncertainty. the stimulus didn't work by oba obama's own measures. unemployment is higher, et cetera. we don't even know what the budget of the federal government
is going to be next year. we don't even know our tax rates. massive uncertainty. >> there's no uncertainty on wall street or in the big business community. they're sitting on $2 trillion in investments and they're not investing in rebuilding this country. they're speculating and doing paper speculation -- >> but they're not going to invest -- >> here's what they're planning to -- >> -- you don't even know what the tax rate will be january 1st -- >> what are the alternatives? how would we have created jobs -- >> there's uncertainty but the uncertainty comes from a lack of demand. >> no, no, no. >> -- is sitting on the sidelines. >> -- or mass speculation -- >> -- increase your capacity when nobody's buying -- >> -- think for a second so you're going to put more -- there's all this money out there in the economy and then we're going to take money from the future because that's where -- >> have you ever run a business? >> yeah, actually, i have.
>> and so have i. >> i won't even know what an employee is going to cost. i don't know the tax rate. i don't know how the health care bill is going to play out -- >> the most convenient smoke screen unrelated to the massive contraction of demand. look at the way factories are 50% utilization. >> look, there's a reason though that businesses leave high tax states like new york and go to texas where the tax rates are lower. there's a reason why that works. >> there's also a reason -- >> wait, hold on, you're saying that tax rates have no effect on economic activity -- >> no, no, of course they do -- >> -- or do you always just give me the highest -- >> nick, the taxes are so low in this country at this moment in comparison to the last 50 years in our history. i believe that -- >> how -- >> -- under president eisenhower, it was a very
different tax code -- >> the business taxes were different -- >> -- shared prosperity and security that the tea -- >> -- so excited because he has this -- >> business taxes were lower under bill clinton. when clinton increased income taxes he lowered business taxes and capital gains taxes and it's relative to where you were in any case. >> there should be some shared agreements. i'm for public/private partnerships but you're not seeing a private sector reach out to help create the demand that would rebuild the country -- >> -- can we agree that t.a.r.p. was poorly structured -- >> totally agree -- >> -- the stimulus was poorly structured if, in fact, it did not create demand. >> there were too many tax cuts in it. >> was there a democratic congress? the democrats had everything that they needed. >> they gave a third of it to the republicans in the hope of bipartisanship which didn't work
in the terms of bipartisanship but a third of it went to 95% of americans who got a tax cut. >> i don't see how anybody can disagree that corporations are going to -- they're going to be influenced by their lack of confidence in the marketplace -- >> if you want a vision of the american future, look to japan. we are doing exactly what they are doing. now they're in their second decade -- >> -- critical of geithner and bernanke -- we think we should be doing more. >> that's right. >> the uncertainty was created by wall street, by the investment banker, by the overleveraging, by the crazy -- >> -- oh, no, you're saying that -- >> gm -- >> -- this is such -- >> no, you're saying that -- >> a sense of -- >> shhh. >> one at a time please. >> all i am saying is that when you have a massive health care legislation bill that is passed,
we don't know the price tag, how it's going to play out. the person who passed it says this is transformative and you're saying that can't have any effect on the way people act in the middle of a recession -- i'm sorry, but that's not credible. >> we're looking for primary causes here and it is the lack of structural demand. because the wealth of the consumer has dropped because the housing market collapsed -- >> why did the housing market -- >> -- but there's no uncertainty -- >> -- what i'm talking about is the fact that big banks knew they were being bailed out. frannie and freddie were buying up paper at the government's request -- >> which is why we agree -- let me finish. too big to fail should have been ended. >> should have been structured, not rescued -- >> -- with the dodd/frank bill that was just passed, now too big to fail is government policy. >> i agree with you. i've been critical since the
beginning. >> -- critical of so much, i mean, you don't seem to have a grasp of why people are sitting on the sidelines -- >> wait a minute, how can you say -- >> you don't know what the future hold because you've got a runaway government -- >> oh, my god. this government is not runaway. i would argue that -- >> it's trying, we just take -- >> how is wall street uncertain when you were looking at record compensation levels this year? when this business community says that obama is anti-business? it's laughable. it's laughable. >> i would agree with you -- wait -- >> -- he, like roosevelt, has rescued capitalism from its excesses and should have done more to reform a system in light of the crisis -- >> i think we can agree on this, obama is definitely pro-wall street. more so than bush i would argue. he is anti-business because he does not believe in less say fair and he does not believe in fair markets. >> hold it right there. we've got lots more. what's her advantage? it's speedy alka-seltzer!
we're back in the arena with our guests. >> we're saying every night name your cuts, we're trying to say we know we need to -- >> they agree on -- let's be clear about that. >> you converge on a fashion statement. >> neither of us would agree to being called left or right. >> all right. how do you -- >> end off-shore tax havens.
senate report estimates bring in $100 million each year. find a way out of this war in afghanistan which is costing this country $16 billion a month. and i would work in a transparence way to cut $1 trillion out of the defense budget over ten years. >> i want to say look, those are good, but they're not enough, give me something bigger. >> i think the defense budget is big -- >> and $100 billion per year from the offshore tax havens. and afghanistan, $16 billion a month. >> so you're going to chop defense, offshore revenue and do something -- >> and i would rework the tax code in this country. i would of course end the extension of tax cuts to the very richest in this country. >> what are you defining as the very richest? >> because i think the working class, middle class in this country -- those under 250,000.
all of those under i think have gotten the shaft. middle class, upper middle class and the working class have gotten the shaft in this country when wages have stagnated. but i would put a super billionaire tax up there as well. >> let's put a trillionnaire tax. >> just so it's clear, social security, medicare, medicaid? >> i would not put those on the table. time of growing and equality and poverty. do you really want to cut a program that's been the greatest force for dignity in this country? >> paul ryan has put some of those on the table. >> i believe in conviction politics. i will respect yours too. >> when you're talking about 12.4% off of the poorest people's payroll tax -- >> i would lift the tax above $106,000 -- >> -- to say, look, in 50 years,
you might be -- >> we have different definitions of dignity. >> nick, give us your cuts. >> to start with, just a quick -- first off, we need to think about getting rid of the idea of entitlements versus discretionary spending. we need to reconfigure the way we talk about spending. it is all government spending. first off, medicare, get rid of the medicare prescription drug benefit. and it goes to people regardless of income. >> what do you mean, get rid of it -- >> when it was passed, seniors on average were paying 3.2% of their income in prescription drugs. they can afford it. the old are not -- this was passed in the '60s but it's actually a depression era mentality program. the retired are not poor anymore. to the extent that they are, then you give them welfare to help pay for drugs. so you get rid of that. for medicare and social security, you get rid of saying they're entitlements and you
create fixed pool also each year that can be spent. it should be means tested. it also probably should be fatzed out for younger people. let them do -- >> phased out or raise the retirement age? >> well, both. >> i'm trying to understand. >> means tested, raise the retirement age so it reflects actual growth and life expectancy and things like that. it's ridiculous it takes a decade to go from -- >> can i just say one larger point? i think we need in this country something that western industrialized countries have. to make a distinction between an operating budget and an investment budget. i think if we had that, we would have a different discussion about the deficit. >> that's what we're talking about when we talk about entitlement spending -- >> i don't know. i wouldn't do means testing -- >> immediately get rid of pell grants. that's ridiculous. all it does is inflate education costs. >> all right, gang, i got to end it. >> beyond it -- no. >> turn his mic off. >> not $100 billion a year from defense but $200 billion --
>> all right -- >> i was grounded in the reality of an actual coalition working on that. >> you all have both done better than any politician we've had on this show. katrina, thank you so much. you'll have to come back and finish that thought. >> i've barely gotten started. >> thanks for an interesting conversation. we'll be right back. ♪
tdd# 1-800-345-2550 if anything, it was a little too much. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 but the moment they had my money? nothing. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no phone calls, no feedback, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 no "here's how your money's doing." tdd# 1-800-345-2550 i mean what about a little sign that you're still interested? tdd# 1-800-345-2550 come on, surprise me! tdd# 1-800-345-2550 [ male announcer ] a go-to person to help you get started. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 regular detailed analysis of your portfolio. tdd# 1-800-345-2550 for a whole lot of extras at no extra charge, tdd# 1-800-345-2550 talk to chuck. tdd# 1-800-345-2550
it's time for fun with politics. those buzzwords that attach themselves to a campaign like gum on your shoe but they tell us a lot. there's text and then there's subtext, right? in 2008 the word we heard over and over again was "change." which of course meant throw the bums out. and then one of your favorite
words, narrative. >> you know what it means, fiction. don't believe a single word you're about to hear. and then your favorite from this year, man up. >> that means you're a wimp or a wuss, right? >> telling everybody to man up. >> here's one for you, shovel really. >> that means photo op. it means a politician wants to stand there, nothing's going to happen. here's one for you, teachable moment. >> i think i know that one. that means we screwed up. >> somebody did, absolutely. >> one of your favorite worlds, infrastructure. >> a project so big our grandkids will pay for it, nobody will ever use it. and then after that one, what we got, the word that's going to be said over and over starting next tuesday, gridlock. >> gridlock. and that's no fiction unfortunately. >> no subtext to that one. >> that's all we have time for now. we'll be right back. >> the end of this election will be about $4 billion that will be spent. [ commentator ] lindsey vonn! she stays tough!
political power couple. he's married to our next guest dana bash, who is cnn's senior congressional correspondent. >> and joining us as well, errol lewis, of the new york 1 political program "inside city hall." and our guest, a columnist at "the daily news" and senior writer at the daily collar.com. an ad from the kitchen cabinet, a group of conservative women. ♪
>> all right. what am i missing here? meg whitman heart, what did she do to her servant, said no, i never met you, is this some sense of irony, to use your word? >> i love this. first of all this comes on the heels of a citizens united movie called "fire from the heartland" that celebrated the rebirth of the conservative movement and the role women are playing. i think what's very interesting in this, and i don't know if everyone noticed, christine o'donnell is not in this ad, not once. i think that's intentional. and think it's very smart. >> kept her out of the -- >> one of these things is not like the others, you know? i think conservatives realize that she's not right up there with backman and i think that's a good thing. >> i like that ad. i was getting chills. >> the only thing -- i feel like i should be sitting in a movie theater or something. the other thing i noticed, just a reminder that these
candidates, meg whitman, carly fiorina and linda mcmahon in connectic connecticut, they're spending lia lot of their own money that they earned which is a very different phenomenon. >> those three at the moment happen to be losing so it will be interesting. you do have this -- >> thanks, john. >> -- high-profile conservative women, moderate to conservative women running in these races. some of them will break through. we also have a number of african-americans running as republicans for congress. so the usual narratives could be changed by this election year. we've seen some changed already. and come tuesday night we might break a few more. >> you have to feel good about the fact that more women are running this year than i think have ever run. is that right, john? you're the expert on stats. >> you get to the gubernatorial level, you add some in there too. many analysts who crunch the numbers think there will be fewer women in the united states congress come january despite the new candidate because of some of the incumbents getting washed out. >> the only thing that would have improved that ad for me is
if they had been on horse back. >> to spoil the party just a little bit, i do wonder about all the people who were laid off by carly fiorina, by meg whitman -- >> debby downer. >> you know, they're wearing blue smokes and pushing carts up and down walmart and -- >> notice what's happened here -- >> and they're the heroes of their family bus they're in a very different position. >> you say they're going to lose, he said they lay people off. and i said meg whitman send -- across the border. clearly a gender argument. but it is good for women in these races. >> as usual, you all will lose. >> we'll reconvene next wednesday night and see. >> meanwhile, the center for responsive politics which is a nonpartisan watchdog group, says that $3.6 billion has flowed into the 2010 election. so, here's the deal for you people -- somebody's going to hand you $3.6 billion, they're not going to tell you where it
comes from, you have one week to spend it. where are you going to go? >> well, aside from my consultants fee for spending this money, i would say with the remainder, frankly, i would use every dollar to find people who didn't vote in the last two cycles in 2006 and 2008 and i would contact them directly and tell them get off the couch and go vote. honestly, that's what i would do -- >> would you pay them to go vote? >> well, no, but i'd spend a fair amount of money trying to get them and ask them, do you need a ride? do you want to see some ads? because we really need your involvement. >> are you doing this as a social purpose or because you think it will change the outcome? >> i think both frankly. >> it won't change the outcome. every study that's been done shows that when you go to the people who don't vote, they are a mirror image of those who do which makes sense statistically -- >> they cancel each other out. it won't change outcomes. >> kathleen, let me actually tell you i did a story on this today. the watchdog group that did this actually estimates that at the
end of this election year, it will been $4 billion that will be spent. and i actually calculated some of what could be spent, $4 billion. 80,000 students could be sent for one year to either princeton or harvard. you could buy three big macs with fries at mcdonald's for every american in this country. just to give you a snapshot. >> would i have to spend it on politics? >> i think not. spend it on whatever you want. >> i would spend it on an ad saying "hate my opponent a little less than you hate me." i would put a little aside for a vacation for me selfishly. >> just you? >> and then maybe -- >> i'd take my wife with me. see if she wanted to come. and then maybe we could feed some hungry people or build some homes or build a shelter or give it to food banks, do something nice with it. >> especially in this bad economy. >> everybody says we spend that much in politics, i wish we spent more. we gave goldman sachs $12.9
million when we bought them out of their position at aig. taxpayer money. we only spent $4 billion total on an election that will determine the fate of this nation, arguably, the world. spend it in a way that's smart. i'd love to see that. >> there's no topic that elliott cannot tie to goldman sachs. >> what about you? >> i'm a woman of simple pleasures. i probably just buy a ranch somewhere down south, buy a couple guns, spend the rest of my life just getting heads on the wall and then maybe -- >> whose heads, can we ask? >> goldman sachs. >> generally exclusively only eat things that once had parents so that's what i would -- >> wow. >> -- maybe a couple charities. i'm not giving it to anyone who doesn't need it. so no politicians, no media. >> boy, wow, a ranch, guns and heads on the wall. >> you said down south which i really appreciate. >> my favorite is kentucky. >> that's not quite far enough south. >> sorry.
welcome back to our political party. let's do one more quick whip around the table. a tough political season for everyone, political parties, presidents. is there anything nice you can say to cheer people up and who would you cheer up? >> you know, hang in there, guys. at least you're not part of the nation's 10% unemployed. at least you still have jobs. >> as of tuesday -- >> they might be back on the dole. i mean, these things have a way of working out. i'm sure no one who is campaigning now is going to go hungry. >> this too shall pass. >> right. >> it's true. i actually -- to every candidate running for the first time who lose, having done it once myself for a local office, i would like to reassure them that life does go on, that it was a worthwhile exercise, and that, you know, things will look a little different in a couple years and if they learned from it and want to stay involved, they've done a great service to the country. even though a lot of people are going to jeer at them. >> lincoln ran, what, five times -- >> oh, yeah, lots of people -- >> dana? >> i think all of the people who
are really sick of raising money, the politicians out there, they don't have to worry because the day after the election all they have to do is start raising money again for the next election. that's the silver lining. >> i would cheer up the losers this way, you're not going to have to come to washington or go to the state capital and have to deal with huge budget gaps and social security and medicare and balancing the budget and all the things that make those voters who just sent the other guy to washington mad at you. >> you know, i want to say something sincere, i would say good show and thank you, because it's a hard, hard thing to run for public office. good people are reluctant to come forward because the media gives them such a hard time. those who do are really i think performing a service to their country, at least trying, and they deserve a medal of honor for courage. >> bring back that music from that ad? >> seriously. >> you're right, those who do it well, those who elevate the conversation, and we do not give those limited number of folks enough credit for how hard it is to do that. john's right, it's very tough once you win if you do so. all right.
>> the hard part. >> that governing thing. >> yeah, the really hard part. all right, john, dana, errol, s.e., thank you so much for joining us. we're throwing a party here every night on "parker spitzer." we've used hydrogen in our plants for decades. the old hydrogen units were very large. recently, we've been able to reduce that. then our scientists said "what if we could make it small enough to produce and use hydrogen right on board a car, as part of a hydrogen system." this could significantly reduce emissions and increase fuel economy by as much as 80%.
thunderstorms and tornado watches and warnings from alabama to the mid-atlantic. high winds cause delays at several large airports. federal authorities arrested a 34-year-old virginia man in connection with an alleged plot to blow up subway stations around washington, d.c. farooque ahmed is accused of conspiring with people he believed were al qaeda operatives. in arkansas, growing pressure to dismiss a school board member who posted anti-gay comments on his personal facebook page. the man under fire is vice president of the midland school district. an elected position. state education officials have condemnled his comments but will they take action? tonight on "360" we're keeping them honest. in tonight's postscript, you may have noticed we've been obsessed with this whole idea of naming your cuts. we've asked every guest to ask us what they would cut to
balance the federal budget. >> right off the bat, they ought to get rid of every one of these czars. >> return the unused t.a.r.p. money. >> get the heck out of afghanistan. we're spending $150 billion a year. >> return the unused stimulus money. >> let's start with public radio. >> freeze federal hiring and pay. >> i think there obviously needs to be a reduction and the defunding of obama care. >> cap and reduce discretionary spending. >> energy department, humanities. >> well, these are all good ideas. we've gotten a big conversation going. as you know from listening, a lot of these ideas don't come close to adding up to the big numbers. but real folks out there are sending e-mails in that do have some good ideas. there's doug, for instance, he had a seven-point detailed plan. he must be running for office somewhere. part of it was not popular things like put a tax on gas. which raises a lot of money. a lot of senators will come out for that onceey